Smt. Sangita Paul, Member
This is a case filed by Sri Samarjit Chatterjee, S/o. Late Subarna Chatterjee of Maheshtala, Budge Budge Trunk Road, Kolkata-700 137 against ION Exchange (India) Ltd. of Mahalakxmi, Mumbai – 400 011, Balaji B Trade, Halishahar, Kolkata-743134, Sri Amal Chandra Das and Sri Amit Banerjee with a prayer for directing the OPs 1 & 2 jointly or severally to pay a sum of Rs.35,000/- only in lieu of refund of the current market price for a brand new compact water purifier fitted and installed with UV Granade, Softenizer POU and DFerrous Iron Remover by taking back the said defective water purifier purchased by complainant on 23.01.2020, to pay Rs.1,00,000/- only to complainant to compensate him for mental pain, anxiety and suffering, for directing to pay OPs 1 & 2 jointly or severally compensation to the tune of Rs.10,000,000/- only for unfair trade practice that OPs have practiced upon the complainant and for directing the OPs to pay Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh ) only to complainant towards legal expenses for this proceedings.
OP No.1, ION Exchange (India) Ltd. is a company incorporated under the provisions of the companies Act 1956, having its registered office at ION House Dr. E. Moses Road, Mahalaxmi, Mumbai-400 011.
OP No.2 is Balaji B. Trade have its office at 404/N, Ram Prasad Sarani, Halisahar 24 Parganas(N) Kolkata-743 134, West Bengal.
OP No.3 is Amal Chandra Das and OP No.4 is Sri Amit Banerjee. Both are working for gain under the OP No.2 and they are available at Balaji B.Trade.
Complainant, by filing this case states that he was approached by OPs 3 and 4 who are the employees of the OP No.2, who is the dealer of OP No.1. OPs 3 and 4 came to sell one unit of water purifier. At that point of time, complainant and his family were in search of a domestic water purifier to suit their need. Complainant permitted OPs 3 and 4 to inspect the water supply and distribution system. OPs 3 and 4 represented their product. As a result, a compact water purifier was fitted and installed with UV Granade, softenizer P.O.U. and D.Ferrous Iron remover. It was suggested that the said water purifier would be best suited for complainant’s flat. Ops 3 and 4 promised that neither the complainant nor his family members would have any complainant relating to their said product and that complainant would get the best quality of efficient service. Complainant purchased 1 unit of water purifier. Complainant paid the full price of water purifier on 23.01.2020 and OPs 3 and 4 installed the same, after 1 week of the payment.
The water purifier functioned properly at the residence of complainant for almost 2 weeks. Afterwards problems occurred and complainant informed OPs 3 and 4. They came and made a live regarding the defect. OPs 3 and 4 tried to make the water purifier active, but all their effort went in vain. Complainant wanted replacement of the leaked D Ferrous Iron Remover but the OPs did not do so. Complainant also wanted refund but of no avail. OPs 1, 2 3, 4 could not help complainant in getting proper redressal. Complainant wrote letter to OP No.1 on 16.03.2020, 24.06.2020, 05.07.2020, 11.10.2020 and 29.12.2020.
The defect in the water purifier led to serious health hazards of complainant and his family.
As per versions of OPs 3 and 4, the price of the product is Rs.28250/- only. That the cause of action for this proceeding arose, on the 13th day from 23.01.2020 (date of purchase) / installation i.e. on the day the said water purifier was detected to be defective and has been continuing day by day.
Hence, complainant prays for an order directing the OPs 1 and 2 jointly or severally to pay a sum of Rs.35,000/- in lieu of the current market price for a brand new water purifier fitted with UV Granade, softenizer, P.O.U. and D.Ferrous Iron Remover by taking back the said defective water purifier purchased by complainant on 23.01.2020, directing the OPs to pay Rs.1,00,000/- only to complainant to compensate him for all the mental pain, agony, anxiety and suffering, directing the OPs 1 & 2 to pay Rs.10,00,000/- only as penalty for unfair trade practice , directing the OPs to pay Rs.1,00,000/- towards legal expenses for this proceeding.
OPs 1 and 3 in their written version state that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or in facts.
OPs 1 and 3 denies all the allegations. They state that the dispute is not a consumer dispute. It is basically a civil dispute. OP No.4 is no longer an employee of OP No.1. OP No.2 is merely an independent retailer. OPs 1 and 3 are not responsible for the actions of OPs 2 and 4.
OPs 1 and 3 state that as per versions of Amit Banerjee (OP No.3) and Amal Das (OP mNo.4). complainant wanted UV unit and not RO Unit. OPs 1 and 3 state that the company has separate user-friendly mechanism dedicated to every consumer to resolve any issue relating to their product.
As of on 14.02.2021, no complaint was lodged by complainant via company’s complain log in. After inspection OPs 3 and 4 came to know that the inlet water pressure was very high than the standard specifications. It is putting pressure in the P.O.U. vessels and resulting in leakages. Complainant was suggested to install PRV (Pressure Reducer Valve) but it could not be done.
Complainant lodged a complainant on 15.02.2021 and it was resolved. There was inherent defect in the unit. The mechanics along with sales team replaced the P.O.U. Deffons Vessel which due to high pressure with another new Vessel on 03.03.2020. Complainant was informed of a bad smell.
Complainant was not satisfied with the quality of water purifier. He stopped using it after 13.03.2020. OPs No.1 and 3 state that OP No.1 is agreed to refund the total amount of purchase for Rs.28,250/-.
OPs 1 and 3 state that the claim is false, frivolous and not maintainable and as such the complainant must be rejected.
The complaint was filed on 21.09.2021 and after hearing, it was filed on 05.10.2021. W/V was filed by the OPs on 20.12.2021. On 20.05.22022, Complainant files BNA. Argument of complainant was heard on 17.06.2022 and we proceed for passing judgement.
Points of Consideration
1. Is the complainant, a consumer?
2. Are the OPs guilty of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice?
3. Is the complainant entitled to get relief as prayed for?
Decision with Reasons
- On perusal of documents and records, it appears that complainant was approached by OPs 3, 4 for selling the product of OP No.1 i.e. ION Exchange (India) Limited. The OPs 3 and 4 wanted to give a demonstration of their product, viz. water purifier. Complainant and his family members were in search of a water purifier, that suits their purpose, complainant permitted OPs 3 and 4 to inspect the water distribution system of his flat. OPs 3 and gave a live demonstration to make complainant understand that the water purifier which they were offering is a water-purifier of superior quality and the same would serve the purpose of complainant in a better way. Complainant was informed that a water purifier, fitted with UV Granade, softenizer, P.O.U. and D Ferrous Iron Remover would be the most suitable one and it would suffice the need of the complainant. Believing in the demonstration of OPs 3 and 4, complainant paid the full price of Rs. 28,250/-. Complainant purchased the water purifier by paying the aforementioned amount. So, the complainant is a consumer under Section 2(7) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. So the 1st point is settled in favour of complainant.
- Complainant was satisfied after purchasing the subject water purifier. But it was observed that the water purifier started giving problem from the very beginning. Complainant paid full price on 23.01.2020. OPs No.3 and 4 installed the same in the flat of complainant. But the said water purifier had some inherent manufacturing defect. Within 2 weeks from the date of purchase, the purifier became absolutely useless and inoperative. Profused leakage was observed from the iron Remover. It was immediately informed to the OPs. But the OPs hardly paid any attention. This act aof the OP tantamount to deficiency in service. After few days they came to inspect the problem. OPs 3 and 4 tried a lot to make the defective water purifier active, but with no result. A water purifier went out of order after two weeks of installation. The activity of the OPs prove unfair trade practice. Complainant had several e-mail-communications with the OPs. The problem of POU defects was not solved. Complainant wanted refund of money on 11.10.2020, because the OPs were unable to solve the problem. Complainant also wrote letter to Op No.1 expressing his dissatisfaction. Over the water purifier provided to him and he requested for refund. In this way, communications went on and the OPs replaced some parts. But the problem remained the same. They did not refund money. The purifier was not functioning properly. It is proved that there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice adopted by the O.Ps. Hence, the 2nd point is settled in favour of complainant.
- Complainant purchased water filter. It started giving problem from the very beginning. Complainant was afraid of health hazard. Complainant informed the OPs immediately. They visited the house of complainant. They failed to solve the problem. Complainant wanted refund of money, because the water filter was unable to produce the desired result. Complainant had to spend long time in mental pain and anxiety. The OPs failed to discharge effective service to complainant. OPs are not efficient enough to provide adequate service to complainant. The incompetency and inefficiency of the OPs lead to inconvenience to the complainant. Complainant wanted the facility of RO, but the said water filter was fitted with UV Granade. As the water filter does not yield desired result, complainant wanted refund, but the OPs were not in a position to refund money. They somehow tried to solve the problem, but the problem was not solved. Under the aforesaid circumstances, complainant is entitled to get back refund of the purchase price along with compensation. The price of the water filter was Rs.28,250/- only. It was purchased on 23.01.2020. Complainant is entitled to compensation for unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. The 3rd point is also settled in favour of complainant.
In the result, the complaint case succeeds.
Hence, it is,
ORDERED
that the complaint be and the same is allowed on contest with cost of Rs.20,000/- only.
That the OPs 1 (manufacturer) and 2 (marketer), jointly or severally are directed to pay Rs.28,250/- along with interest @10% p.a. to the complainant w.e.f. 23.01.2020 within 60 days from the date of this order.
That the OPs jointly or severally are directed to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/- only and the litigation cost of Rs.20,000/- to the complainant within the stipulated period of 60 days.
That the complainant is at liberty to put the order into execution if the orders are not complied with within the stipulated period.
Let a copy of the order be supplied free of cost to the parties concerned.
The final order will be available in the following website www.confonet.nic.in.
Dictated and corrected by me.
(Sangita Paul)
Member
